You are correct, total government spending as a % of GDP is higher than at time in U.S. history except for WW2.

Total government spending was flattish under JFK. It rose under Johnson, Nixon and Ford. It was flattish under Carter. It rose under Reagan and the first Bush. It declined under Clinton. It rose under W. It rose in 2009 under Obama, and has since been declining.

So it seems pretty straightforward to me. If the U.S. stops electing Republican Presidents, we'll get that number moving down.

So far no one else has remarked on an error, though minor, in the last sentence. When the author says, "we may see ratings agencies discount our credit status due to political incapacity and lack of social cohesion," he or she forgets that in August 2011 S&P already downgraded the American credit rating, from AAA to AA+, and assigned a negative outlook to that rating as well. S&P's reasoning, doubt about government seriousness, appears to accord with the author's guess about the reason for possible future downgrades. (In case anyone needs it, one news report is at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/us-usa-debt-downgrade-idUSTRE7...)

What do you have to compare ryans plan to? The BS budget that Obama put forth last year garnered no support, other than that there has been no democratic budget. If you base it off what the media reports then you are focusing on side which does not mirror people's sentiments. Without a doubt changes will need to occur in how our government handles itself, having not passed nor really proposed a budget for the last 3 years if fiscally reckless.

What is reckless about it? Things seem to be humming along as usual. This is hardly the first time there was no budget, in fact it happens so often maybe we could call it par for the course. How can there even BE a budget when the Republicans vow to vote no or filibuster anything brought to them?

"increases the rewards from shifting the Overton window and projecting steadfast resistance and purity."

Government spending as percentage of GDP - not to mention in absolute terms - is higher than it's ever been, and was higher under its lowest point under Bush than its highest points under Carter. The only category of government spending that's trended down over the last 30 to 40 years is military (it's gone up since 9/11, but far less so than it went down following the end of the gold war).

I keep hearing about this shift to the right but it's completely imaginary.

"Something about the way political discussion and competition work has shifted over the past 20 years in a fashion that dramatically reduces the benefits to be gained from either the appearance of moderation or from actual legislative accomplishments, and increases the rewards from shifting the Overton window and projecting steadfast resistance and purity"

Partisans vote and big money means partisans can be agitated. Broad public support isn't needed to get elected.

Also the draft free generation is maturing.

And, as mentioned elsewhere, Collapse is probably a more interesting book on why societies choose to fail.

How can something like this be discussed without consideration of the gutting of the American public school system? When a populous can't add or subtract, doesn't know what century the country was founded in, and can not write a coherent sentence, how can they possibly be informed voters?

My countrymen think that any government program that slightly resembles those of European governments is a threat to the nation, yet these people have never been to Europe (or anywhere else outside of the country, except perhaps Cancun). They think Saddam was behind 9/11, Obama was born in Kenya, and science is something to be regarded with suspicion while religion venerated without question. We have more people in prison than any other country in the world (or the gulag system at its height - the most recently passed mileston) and worry about crime. Suburbanites clutch their pearls and worry about bottled water on airplanes carried by "suspicious" (AKA minority) folks, yet drive maniacally and kill 30,000 people per year doing so. A man can murder an unarmed 17 year old kid, tell the police it was self-defence, and be home in time for dinner.

I'm sorry, but what nobody seems to be willing to say about the downfall of my country is that frankly, it's because Americans just aren't too bright.

It's the racism underlying all that stuff that is destroying us. You can only lock up a large percentage of men from one group, leaving families fatherless, for so long before your society fails. Throw in the bad schools (only found in minority neighbourhoods)and bad access to food, medicine, the unfair 'justice' we mete out, etc.

Are you always this condescending when you beat up on strawmen? Considering you're an American, wouldn't your last sentence automatically disqualify your entire post because by your own admission you aren't too bright.

"our political classes fundamentally back completely different visions of what government is for"

It sounds like a binary choice. On the one hand we could have a hideous chimera of neoconservatism, theoconservatism and neoliberalism. Where government is squeezed out, inequality and poverty seen as natural and good, ignorance is celebrated and fear and paranoia elevated. On the other hand is an interesting mix of social democracy, neoliberalism and state interventionism with neoliberalism somewhat on the defensive since 2008.

The world seems to be headed down the second track in broad terms. It would be useful from a theoretical perspective to see America head down the first path. To see what happens and to learn lessons.

"...[T]he increase in polarisation in American politics is driven partly by involuntary factors that are not under politicians' control."

It is important to emphasize the word "partly" in the above assessment. At various points, the Republicans (and to a much lesser extent the Democrats) have let the extreme fringes of their party run wild because it looked politically plausible to see their opponents under attack; and because it might have probably helped them in the next election. What they seemingly didn't realize was how much these fringes could grow and eventually purge these very people out of the hierarchy of the party. This has been a gross moral failure as well as terrible short-termism.

Until the GOP is willing to unclench their proverbials and start taxing the wealthiest, we will continue to have constipation in the legislative process.
It is not helpfull to tax the poor.
It is unwise to tax the middle class at this time.
Yes, spending needs to be reduced.
But to expect the oldest citizens to take the brunt while the one pecent basicaly get off scott free, is disengenuous at best and downright creepy at worst.

DiA, I think you are missing the reason why this budget looks the way it does. The country has such large deficits that to bring them anywhere close to under control, without cutting benefits for seniors or raising revenue, the cuts have to fall very hard on the rest of the budget.

This doesn't reflect an approach to society, it reflects republicans position of being caught between opposition to taxes and support for seniors.

My interpretation is that MS makes a good point but needlessly alienates conservative readers.
MS's point is that there's a big political divide.
He then talks about a fairly extreme budget proposal by Paul Ryan - and yes, a future where non-defense, non-entitlement government spending is only 1% of GDP is a pretty extreme stance.
However, what about the other half of the great divide?
By contrast, the long-term Democratic budget plan seems to be, "LOOK AT WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING! WE'D NEVER DO THAT! Vote for us, and we'll raise taxes to pay for everything...but only on the very rich...and only eventually, not now, we promise!"
It takes two sides to create a vast political divide.

In the end, I give the Democrats a slightly higher grade than Republicans on this issue because the Republicans in the House are backing away from the deal made last year where entitlement spending (cherished by Democrats) and defense spending (cherished by Republicans) were to be cut unless they came up with offsetting tax increases and spending cuts.

Still, neither side has behaved like a profile in courage...or even a profile in reality.

So Republicans only want to cut foreign aid but they want to cut everything? You can't make the case for two opposing narratives in the same story, MS.

As for your main point, of course it's harder to get anything done with a divided government. Every federal tax hike was enacted during a time when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Welfare reform passed when Republicans controlled both houses.

"So Republicans only want to cut foreign aid but they want to cut everything?"

The gist I got was that the average Republican voter only wants to cut foreign aid, according to polls that list spending items.
This stands in contrast to Republican elected officials that apparently want to cut everything but are unwilling to go on the record listing what exactly they want to cut. Instead, they set a goal for non-entitlement spending to be around 4%, and they say defense spending should be around 3%, and then pass up the chance to talk about what that means with regards to infrastructure, education, etc. government outlays.

And in the interest of fairness, you could argue the mirror image thing for Democrats.

The average Democratic voter only wants to increases taxes on the wealthy, according to polls that list tax and spending items.

This stands in contrast to Democratic elected officials that apparently want to keep funding entitlements as is more or less indefinitely but are unwilling to go on the record listing how exactly Medicare, Medicaid, and social security can be made solvent on the backs of the top 2.5%. Instead, they set a goal for entitlement programs to be "saved from the Republicans", and they say everybody is overtaxed except for the top 2.5%, and then pass up the chance to talk about how high taxes would have to go on the top 2.5% to preserve these spending items without major reform.

Um, no. The flip side would be that Democrats support raising taxes on the rich while Democratic politicians want to cut the corporate tax rate further, aren't raising the tax on capital gains back to the same level as all other income and haven't let Bush's tax cuts expire.

The giant deficit right now isn't caused by long-term spending: it's there because our GDP right now sucks. You can't raise money by taxing income people aren't making. Get the economy working again, and most of the deficit goes away. Then you can reign in the prescription drug costs and military spending that caused the problem in the first place.

Cutting foreign aid and raising taxes on the income on the one percent are both drops in the bucket.

To pay for entitlements on their current trajectory you would have to dramatically raise taxes on the middle class as well. To keep the tax burden on the middle class constant, entitlements have to be cut.

It's the same problem whichever side you look at it from. And, neither side wants to have to tell their constituency this.

M.S. and Yglesias are correct -- Ryan's budget is not posture, it is a serious proposal that reflects the beliefs of the Republican core. Per typingmonkey, Republicans want out of the post-New Deal mindset that existed in both parties from the 1930s until quite recently. They want a version of the 1920s federal government, only with a LOT more defense spending.
Oh and I continue to maintain that Lincoln made a mistake. The Confederates did not share the same view of the Union in 1861. They still don't. Let 'em go, let 'em form a Christian democracy that reflects their views, and let's have a Union that reflects ours.

Agreed. The very name of our country, "United States" has become a bad joke. America simply doesn't exist anymore, and it's just a matter of time before secession is seriously considered again. This time around though, we're not going to bother fighting a war over the issue. One benefit to this though will be that American conservatism will no longer pose a menace to world peace.

Do you know that the richest states are all northern, and most of the poorest are southern? Do you know that the state most loudly against federal spending on wealth equalization, Texas, has numerous military bases and other boondoggles paid for with northern tax money? Ai caramba, let the south secede, and keep northern money in the north while letting the south (re-)join América Latina.

Republicans do not want to improve and invest in public health, they want to retreat from it.

Republicans do not want to improve and invest in public infrastructure, they want to retreat from it.

Republicans do not want to improve and invest in public education, they want private/parochial vouchers.

Republicans do not want to improve and invest in public welfare, they want it "faith based".

Republicans do not want to improve and invest in public journalism, they want their own talk radio.

Republicans do not want to improve and invest in public safety, they want to arm themselves and stand their ground.

I would agree that public institutions are never perfect. They need continual review and improvement. But if half the nation turns its back on the very idea of collaborative engagement, what we have is the birth of a new Confederacy. White, Christian conservatives literally believe that everyone else is not a "real" American. So it comes as no surprise that to the extent that they can no longer dominate the public sphere, they choose to abandon it. THAT is why they don't want to pay taxes. THAT is why they elect politicians who refuse to compromise. Like a wayward spouse, they don't want a couples counselor, they want a divorce lawyer. If they must share a nation with the rest of us, they are insiting on separate rooms and separate checking accounts.

Marriages and nations don't fail when they lack agreement. They fail when they lack buy in.

Well, when whites took control of this land, the incumbents who weren't killed outright were herded onto reservations of the least desired land. They were later given gambling licenses and excise tax exemptions.

So what did you have in mind this time around? The border states with Canada, and special license to sell financial derivatives?

You can always tell a MS piece by the way he begins by attacking Republican then says "but that wasn't my point."

"Ezra Klein and Robert Greenstein pointed out that it fails to specify $6.2 trillion in needed cuts, and that it's based on the unrealistic idea that all federal spending besides Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid drops to 3.75% of GDP, meaning the elimination of everything the government does besides the military."

Neither Klein nor Greenstein said that so I'd like to see where you got 3.75% from.

"John Sides says this vision of federal spending isn't likely to go over well even with Republican voters, most of whom don't support cutting any category of spending apart from foreign aid."

You repeat this falsehood a lot and I correct you every time but you never correct yourself. First, according to Sides most Republicans want to cut spending on foreign aid, housing, unemployment benefits, and environment. But even that's not all Republicans want to cut. Nearly every Republican wants to cut a category of spending apart from those. They just don't agree on which category. If a third want to cut Social Security, a third Medicare, and a third defense, you'd declare that most Republicans don't want to cut anything when in fact all Republicans want to cut something.

Why did the Republican position harden over the last three years? You think maybe the way Obama shoved Obamacare through Congress, pretty much over the Republicans' dead bodies, might have something to do with it?

Do you think having republicans like chuck grassley, who co-authored the PPACA with max baucus, stab democrats in the back when idiotic lies about the law, promulgated by the likes of sarah palin and her disingenuous ilk, started gaining traction in the summer of 2009, might have had anything to do with the democrats shoving the law thru congress?

At the beginning of 2009, we had some semblance of bipartisanship. The senate finance committe was taking the lead on our most pressing fiscal issue by far, the skyrocketing costs of healthcare. By the fall, every republican who ever tried to work with dems was running to the right to avoid damnation by the tea party and fox news. All except olympia snowe, who just quit cause she is so sick and tired of the way things are now.

How soon the right forgets that the PPACA, with minor funding differences, IS THEIR IDEA! Face it, the republican party has been overrun by people who hate obama more than they love this country. They will do and say anything at this point. It truly is laughable.

Then again, President Obama proposed a plan that closely resembled what Mitt Romney passed, that contained many elements of Newt Gingrich's 1990s plan, and which at least in spirit reflected Rick Santorum's 1990s statements that government had a critical role to play in health-care policies, because the marketplace alone would not fashion the best solution.

And for that the President was treated as the Great Socialist.

So perhaps the Republicans deserved to have this passed over their dead bodies, because their live bodies sure as hell weren't being useful.

And, having got elected, had the bad taste to pass something that looked like what they had previously advocated. What is more irritating than to have someone you want to demonize keep acting sensibly and doing things that you have been demanding?

As usual, an M.S. essay has incited ideological warfare. Let me suggest an alternative. The Ryan plan makes plain the fact that the costs of Social Security and Medicare as currently structured are rising exponentially, and something's got to give. Those who think more taxes can prevent this are dreaming: there's no way the economy, and hence government revenue can grow fast enough to solve the problem, which is driven by longevity.
Rather than yelling at each other, why don't we have an apolitical (M.S. please note) conversation about the fact that current trends in government expenditure are unsustainable and how the problem might be addressed?
For example, government expenditure as a percentage of GDP in 2010 was higher than at any time since 1903 other than during the two World Wars (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html). Might a place to start be to establish a target of, say 35%, of GDP, and then decide how the pie should be sliced?

Whatever the percentage is, it's higher than it been since 1903 (and increased significantly during the Great Depression) outside of World Wars and unsustainable. The concept upon which I invited discussion was: should government expenditures be limited to a percentage of GDP, and if so what should it be.

Roughly 2/3 of us normally have that. Raising taxes will help. Cutting entitlement spending will help. Ryan's budget no more inspires apolitical discussion of those facts than M.S.' posts do. But we can still have the discussion and should and do. You're welcome to join.

Nope, it's lower than it was in 2010, according to Hedgie's graph.
I sort of like the idea of a percentage of GDP cap on federal expenditures. What neither party is worth a tinkerer's dime at is prioritizing.

Where? All I see here is, "more; no, less!; no, more!!; no, less!!!" It seems to me that we might cut the knot by hypothesizing that there's a sustainable limit. Incidentally, I was struck by the fact in the Cleavland Fed reference that the percentage represented by transfer payment increased by a third in 2008 and has remained there.

Objectively!
There's a surfeit of "gottchas" and propaganda regurgitation, and a dearth of constructive commentary. Since Congress is clearly incapable of holding an adult conversation might "We the people" give it a shot?

I agree. But I think you're being a little harsh on the dialogue here. I don't read the blogs at politico because they approach 100% of "Republicans are risible fools" and "Democrats are despicable babboons." I think if you read a typical page of comments and replies, you'll find there are about 10 insulting Republicans, a slightly smaller number insulting Democrats and a larger number taking some other approach. Come on in and add some thoughts to the thoughtful part, but your first post on this thread sounded a little messianic.

Guilty as charged! I am deeply frustrated by the inability to have a civil conversation about a topic of importance. In my defense, I did offer a though and, so far, you are the only respondent who has responded (BTW, I've been reading this blog and its comments for a couple of months).
It seems to me that the way forward may be to look at the numbers (Fed income vs. expense and how the pie is sliced) at times when the deficit was under control for guidance.
Transfer payments and defense are clearly out of whack.

If I recall correctly, the last time the deficit was under control (i.e. we were running a surplus, so we could even pay down some of the accumulated debt) was the late 1990s. So what changed?

1) The dot com bubble burst.
2) Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, again with no funding. (NOTE: this is entirely independent of the merit, or lack of merit, of those wars themselves!)
3) Medicare Part D was passed, with no funding provided.
4) Bush II tax cuts.

Oh yes, and
5) Baby Boomers started retiring (sometimes early) and taking Social Security. And those who didn't are now starting to become eligible for Medicare

Of these, #1 was probably a good thing. And in any case, not really something that politics could address. (Even if some politicians seem to think they can "manage" the economy.) #2 was half unavoidable (Afghanistan), but the decision not to tax to pay for it was unnecessary -- at the time there was plenty of political opportunity to enact a war tax.

But #3 and #4 were entirely political decisions, with no sign of a thought for economics, or even just sanity. #5 was completely predictable, which just makes #3, and #4 even stupider.

So where can we go now?

1) Accept that, realistically, some defense spending to get inventories back up to snuff will be required. But besides that, rebalance the forces that we do have to have some relation to what we might actually need. The Pentagon has actually put out a document on what that would be. So far, Congress seems determined to ignore any and all suggestions of things that could be cut.

2) Accept that, once the economy is back on its feet, tax revenues will need to go up. That includes raising tax rates and/or eliminating deductions.

3) Accept that the current "guaranteed" promises from Medicare are simply impossible. Whether we put on lifetime limits, or institute "death panels" or something else, what we have is impossible to sustain.

4) Accept that, while Social Security can be funded, doing so will require either means testing (getting it back to being a safety net, rather than a total retirement program), or making all income, not just wages and salaries and not just below a set limit, subject to tax. Or both, plus a rate increase.

I wish I was confident that any, let alone all, of those would happen any time soon. But I'm betting that it will take something traumatic to get the voting population to accept the reality. And even longer to get politicians to accept it.

I think you can go on all you want about the guilt free joy of not descending into the partisan squalor and calling yourself an independent, but from a completely objective perspective (not my own), i think you'd find yourself placed far more to the left than the right in the american political spectrum. I assume you are a social and civil liberal, and consider yourself an economic moderate. That makes you 75% of a democrat, and also makes you a willing political combatant. Dont kid yourself into thinking you are somehow above concerned political discourse. Youre an opinionated Political commentator, not the voice of reason you so desperately wish to be.

My point was that the fact that his political views don't align perfectly with either political party hardly makes him this smug spectator he seems to want to be in the partisan debate. Republicans in my view are social conservatives and economic "liberals" in the classical sense. What do you think Republicans are? Something pithy I'm sure...

I couldn't agree more -- and I fear the "something traumatic" to which you refer. It does seem to me though the the first step is to put a flexible cap, e.g., a percentage of GDP, on spending. The evidence suggests that it's the only way to put the politicians' feet to the fire. There's another, in my view more draconian, approach wending its way through the State legislatures, namely a constitutional amendment requiring approval of an increase in the Federal debt limit buy a super-majority of the States. This would, in effect, cap the debt limit once and for all, thereby permanently capping expenditure.
Is that traumatic enough?
Regards,